Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
STATION
CSPAN 46
LANGUAGE
English 46
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46 (some duplicates have been removed)
consumers, they are chronically bad at creating a balance between deficit and surplus regions. a geographic problem, and intertemporal. remember -- if that comes first, suddenly the money lender who later becomes a banker who later becomes wall street plays a hugely significant role in this process. the banker is the conduit of that recycling mechanism. when they get an increase in proportion as the result of their mediation of that process. given that, a failure of the banker is not the same thing as the failure of a clothes maker. suddenly, there are two things that must happen. one, society will demand that banks are not allowed to go to the wall. then bankers are affectively given carte blanche, free money for themselves. and the whole mechanism breaks down like in 2008. it is often said in the eurozone, we made a huge error in europe of binding disparate economies by means of common currency. this is not the first time these things that happened. it happened in the united states of america. you have disparate economies in the united states of america that are bound together monetarily
and services among consumers, they are chronically bad at creating a balance between deficit and surplus regions. a geographic problem, and intertemporal. remember -- if that comes first, suddenly the money lender who later becomes a banker who later becomes wall street plays a hugely significant role in this process. the banker is the conduit of that recycling mechanism. when they get an increase in proportion as the result of their mediation of that process. given that, a failure of the banker is not the same thing as the failure of a clothes maker. suddenly, there are two things that must happen. one, society will demand that banks are not allowed to go to the wall. then bankers are affectively given carte blanche, free money for themselves. and the whole mechanism breaks down like in 2008. it is often said in the eurozone, we made a huge error in europe of binding disparate economies by means of common currency. this is not the first time these if things that happened. it happened in the united states of america. you have disparate economies in the united states of america that are
a plant to grow the economy and shrink our efforts -- deficit. it is a balanced plan, one that would cut spending in a responsible way and ask the wealthiest americans to pay a little more. i will keep working with anybody serious about getting a comprehensive plan like this done because it is the right thing to do for our economic growth. we are not at the point where in a couple of days, the losses at the americans' tax rates are going up. the americans paycheck will get a lot smaller. that would be the wrong thing to do for our economy. it would hurt middle-class families and it would hurt the businesses that depend on your spending. and congress can prevent it from happening, if they act now. leaders in congress are working on a way to prevent this tax hike on the middle class and i believe we may be able to reach an agreement that can pass both houses in time. but, if an agreement is not reached on time, i will urge the senate to hold an up or down vote on a basic package that protect the middle tax from the income tax hike, extends vital unemployment insurance and lays the groundwo
. the deficit of about $1 trillion that is for fiscal 2013. that assumes that somehow the fiscal cliff doesn't happen and we don't reduce the deficit by $600 billion. national debt, about $16 billion , debt held by the public -- as a percentage it is getting up there. we've had it before. as we talked about two weeks ago it is not so much that the size of the debt it is how fast the debt is growing in comparison to the size of the economy. you don't want to pay off the debt but you want it to fall. host: how did we get to this point? why is the government spending so much and under this president, we've seen the debt go up $1 trillion each year over the last four years. where is it going? guest: there are two main ways to look at it. right now, we're still coming out of this economic crisis. so you have large debts for four years mainly because you have low revenues as people don't have jobs or they are getting paid less. then there has been extra spending programs over the last four years but also, we have this mandatory spending programs that grow on auto pilot. over the last four years th
. >> what is out of touch is deficit that we had to deal with. that is what we have had to do. the same time as cutting taxes for the poorest in our country, increasing child tax credit, and ashley freezing the casual tax -- actually freezing the tax to help the families. when it comes to the top rating -- the richest in our country will pay more in tax under every year of this government than any year of his government. those are the facts. he may not like them, but he cannot deny them. >> ed miliband. >> the problem is, nobody believes him anymore. and we know who this prime minister stands up for. where was he last weekend -- back to his old ways, partying with rebecca brooks. no doubt both looking forward to the boxing day hunt, mr. speaker. that is before he was elected -- he can represent everyone in your country, you cannot be a one-nation party. that was then. this is now. everybody knows you cannot be a one-nation prime minister. >> mr. speaker, it would not be christmas without the repeats. that is all we ever get. that is all we ever get from the honorable gentleman. done this yea
, grow the economy, strengthen the middle-class, reduce the deficit, and to do so in a responsible way. we can and we must get the job done now. i am pleased to yield to the distinguished democratic legislator, steny hoyer. >> i thank the leader for her comments, and certainly agree with her. last night's vote showed us the resolving the challenge of the fiscal cliff cannot and will not be done with a partisan vote. it showed us that we must work together in a bipartisan way, he and that we must preclude going over the fiscal cliff, by a balanced agreement that democrats and republicans him support, the president can sign, and that can pass the senate. we should not seek taxes go up on working-class americans. we should not see doctors put a risk in terms of their delivery of services to seniors. we should not see the alternative minimum tax and put at risk. we need to lend confidence to our country. some years ago, he confronted partisan gridlock. newt gingrich and bill clinton got together to reach an agreement it was very controversial. newt gingrich said -- this is october 20, 1998
have a $16 trillion deficit right now. we have the deficit because of social security, medicaid, medicare, welfare, food stamps -- all policies put into effect by the democratic party. everything is socialism. thomas jefferson said it best -- the republic is doomed. people sacrifice -- i'm a libertarian. i am more objective. i'm not a republican or democrats. i have to wonder if i want to live in this country. 29% of americans got some kind of assistance when ronald reagan was president. i have to consider and i'm considering moving to a tropical island and watching america go down the drain. we need to abolish social security, medicare, and medicaid. host: i will stop you there. we appreciate your thoughts. joseph says -- will go back to stay but by the president on the passing of norman schwarzkopf. host: "his legacy will e ndure." back to your calls. caller: good morning. god bless us. [indiscernible] where is the love? .e're at a church when the president and everybody was running. the church was all over the program. we're in the church. do you know what happened? when we f
just passed reduces the deficit $23 billion. the last farm bill that we passed that was completely paid for at my insistence as budget committee chairman. if everyone else were functioning the way the agricultural sector has would not have the budget problem. we faced up to reality. we had more pay fors than expenses. in this bill even far more in the way of deficit reduction. it demonstrates this is possible to do. but you got to have leadership and you got to have people who are willing to make some tough decisions to get it done. >> we have about five minutes and i want to talk more personal. you have decided to leave your papers of your quarter century plus to george washington university. why is that? >> i went to george washington university. they have tremendous resources there to take advantage of this collection which is loaded with history. >> what kind of things will researchers and historians find? >> i will find a single-minded focus on fiscal responsibility for 26 years. my staff says the remarkable thing i am looking at this collection is how consistent i have been about.
deficit. it is time for the president to step up. knowing this fiscal cliff was going to take place for well over a year, the president has not acted in good faith. what we are doing today is three things. number one, we are moving a centralized negotiation back to where it should become a decentralized basis, so 435 house members can vote and speak on it and express their baby opinion. hopefully the senate can take it and amend, but this debate belongs inside the united states capitol. last year, we heard so much about the 99%. this will give tax breaks to them. it is permanent. this is good for the economy. it is good for economic growth. i urge a yes vote on the rule. >> i have no further. >> gentleman from california. gentleman reserves his time. >> i cannot say it enough. the legislation is a step backward. plan b, plan c, neither is a serious proposal but are designed to get headlines. they are making it harder to find common sense solutions to the impending fiscal cliff. the time for the games is over. it is time the majority comes to the table with a serious proposal. as i s
of these politicians, mayors, governors should take a half cut pay to pay down the deficit. host: we are going to move on to darwin on the line for independents. caller: it is like the pentelikon, back in 1968 i was even fighting with the pentagon over budgets. you always had to have everything kept the same. nobody was going to change anything because next year there were going to pop everything by 10%. they told you got to worry because you would get 10% more. that goes all the way back to 1968. they just keep dwelling on one thing over and over again. i would like to know from the boston globe or the herald is asking for pictures of -- host: let's move on to del on the line for democrats. caller: this is an outrage that they cannot tax the wealthy by an additional 4%. this is the lowest tax rates that have ever paid in the united states. considering that their incomes are vast compared to what they used to be many years ago when they paid a much higher rate, they are wealthy and they do not want to pay. 4% does not amount to enough to affect the deficit. maybe we ought to consider 15% or something
-defense cuts, and you have this huge amount of revenue, deficit reduction, it is hard to see what demands the republicans think will be easier to make, the new year. guest: you have also seen all the polls that show that the president's popular the is close to an all-time high, and the polls show definitively that the republicans will be blinged if we go over the cliff and taxes go up. that was before the debacle of this past week. it has been a bad week for conservatives. it sounds to me like they're continuing to be a little delusional. host: when you make a public threat, you better be able to back up -- guest: washington wizards might have had a worse week. from a political standpoint, this was a monumental embarrassment for the speaker. host: i want to make sure i get the title of this correct. "the guide to the federal budget." how big is the federal budget? how much do take in? , to do spend? how much is $16 trillion? >> total payroll spending will be about $3.80 trillion. revenues will be about $2.80 trillion. we have a deficit of about $1 trillion. that is for fiscal 2013. that a
the difference between the annual deficit and the national debt. the national debt is the fiscal cliff. we say it's unsustainable. from a mathematical standpoint, it is almost insurmountable. the only thing these taxes will do, i have graduate students who could not put into words what a trillion dollars was. host: go ahead and finish your thought on what these taxes will do. caller: what they will do is they will give the politicians a little leeway to fool around with the national deficit, the annual deficit, but they will not put a dent in the $16 trillion debt that we owe. that is the problem. host: we appreciate that call. over the past couple weeks, c- span has been conducting interviews with some of the retiring members. we have been showing those interviewed this week. tonight, one of the retiring members we spoke with is representative lynn woolsey, a democrat of california, served about 20 years. here's a portion of that interview. [video clip] >> i was on welfare because my children, ages 1, 3, and five years old, their father was diagnosed manic depressive, he would not do anything ab
reduces the deficit $23 billion. the last farm bill that we passed was completely paid for at my insistence, as budget committee chairman. if everybody else were functioning the way the agriculture section has, we would not have a problem. we in the agriculture committee face up to reality. we had more pay-for spend expenses. -- baena expenses. i think it demonstrates this is possible to do. by you've got to have leadership. and you've got to have people who are willing to make some tough decisions to get it done. >> we have about five minutes. you have decided to leave your papers to george washington university. why is that? >> i went to george washington university and got my master's in business there. they are tremendous resources there to take advantage of this collection, which is really loaded with history. >> what kind of things will researchers and historians find in your papers? >> they will find that kent conrad has had a single-minded focus on fiscal responsibility for 26 years. my staff says a remarkable thing in looking at this collection is how consistent i've bee
to forge an agreement that would grow our economy and shrink the deficit, a balanced plan that would cut spending in a responsible way but also ask wealthy americans to pay more and protect our middle-class and everyone striving to get into the middle class. i want to get this done. it is the right thing to do for our families, businesses, and our economy, but the hour for immediate action is here. it is now. we are at the point where in four days every american's tax rates are scheduled to go up by law. every americans' paychecks will get considerably smaller. that would be the wrong thing to do for our economy, it would be bad for middle-class families, and it would be bad for businesses that depend on family spending. congress can prevent it if they act right now. i just had a good and constructive discussion here at the white house with leadership about how to prevent the tax hike on the middle class. i am optimistic we may reach an agreement that can pass both houses in time. senators reid and mcconnell are working on such an agreement as we speak, but if an agreement is not reached
in a nation with $16 trillion of debt, with an annual deficit of more than $1 trillion by simply talking about raising revenues of the top 2%. you can take all the revenue, all the revenue from the top 2% and you simply could not close the annual deficit. that's a challenge. it's a challenge and it's a place where senator jim demint has led. senator jim demint has led in a way that few others have led and he's been consistent, he's been transparent and he's been succinct, and that is why there is no way to fill his shoes. there's no way to have another jim demint in america. i'm so thankful that we in south carolina, we don't lose jim demint, that we see jim demint go to a bigger, greater opportunity. there is no one else in south carolina than lindsay graham. senator graham has served his state incredibly well. he understands the foreign affairs are real like no other. i look forward to learning more about foreign affairs from senator graham. i will also say that over the last two years i've had the privilege of gaining a new family. some people don't think we look alike, but sometimes we do.
taxation by using a flat tax. that way you can calculate the amount of taxes we need for the deficit over 10 years. another point is to control the spending on entitlements by not giving millionaires social security benefits, thereby satisfying president obama's approach. instead of doing it through taxation, he can do it through the entitlements. guest: those are both ideas that have been raised, especially the social security and medicare benefits for the wealthy and potentially might not need them to live off of. one tricky part of that is wealthier americans have been paying these taxes for decades into social security and medicare if and a lot of folks have a problem with the idea of taking away their benefits they have paid for if just because they happen to be more well off. and issued the first caller raised and something to watch is this could really sort of set the tone for the president's second term. if this thing gets ugly and stays ugly, it's probably going to stay that way at least another year or two, and the next thing you know, he's a lame duck president. if we cut a dea
trillion in deficit reduction. we need to stabilize the debt and work it down is a package of about $4 trillion over ten years. here we are today, december 19, and these law changes which i referenced earlier, the end of the bush era tax cuts, the dreaded sequester, across the board cuts of $1.2 trillion in spending will begin to take effect the first of next year. the good news is the white house and republicans have been trading proposals and at least yesterday appeared to be moving closer together. i would have much preferred that they would be talking about a bigger package than they've discussed but nonetheless to reach a package that would resolve some of these issues would be an important step forward and i think help promote certainty that would be important to our economy. on the revenue side of the equation, i just want to remind you what it's taken in the past to balance the budget. we hear talk on average revenue is in the 18% of g.d.p. range n. getting back to average you will should be sufficient. the problem with that is we have never balanced the budget in the last 50 y
deficits, it is very hard to say that there should be a substantial increase of foreign aid when we're talking about going off the fiscal cliff and we do not have enough money to do some basic things with we should be doing at home. i think this is the worst possible time to do it. in general, we're underfunding in my estimation foreign aid. we do foreign aid because it is the right thing to do, but it is the right thing to do for the united states. we need friendly countries around the world, we need countries that emulate us. we have much to share, much to give to the world. i think it helps the united states. it also helps stimulate our economy. some of the aid we give is put right back into our economy. >> when we're talking about the fiscal cliff, we heard so much about spending and revenues over the next decade. is the best scenario over the next decade merely a maintenance of existing foreign aid? >> certainly we should maintain it. we have in fact cut back on foreign aid. at the very least, we should maintain it. i would like to see if we get to a place where we can have som
our deficit under control, to avoid tax cuts -- to avoid tax hikes on the middle-class. and to make sure we can spur jobs and economic growth. a balanced proposal that cuts spending, but also ask the wealthiest americans to pay more, a proposal that will strengthen the middle class over the long haul, and our economy over the long haul. in the course of these negotiations, i offered to compromise with republicans in congress. i met them halfway on taxes and more than halfway on spending. today, i am still willing to get a comprehensive package done. i still believe that reducing our deficit is the right thing to do for the long-term health of our economy and the confidence of our businesses. i remain committed to working towards that goal, whether it happens all at once, or whether it happens in several different steps. but in 10 days, we face a deadline. in 10 days, under current law, tax rates are scheduled to rise on most americans. and even though democrats and republicans are arguing about whether those rates should go up for the wealthiest individuals, all of us, every single
into the situation we are in right now, with the huge debate over the size of the deficit and the debt? >> go back to 2001 and thereafter. the cost of the wars was not included in the budget. they were always supplemental. they did not show as a deficit. while the budgets looked reasonable during that time, the actual spending was greater. people did not pay as much attention to the debt. it just kept mounting and growing. we borrowed to pay for the worse when we did not ask people to make sacrifices financially. there is a difference between borrowing in the future, pang forward and backwards, or having to pay right now. people might have felt differently if they had felt a pinch right at the time. they would have asked different questions than were asked. that is one of the reasons we got where we are. >> could you have been any more vocal about appropriations? >> i was vocal. when i got on the appropriations committee, i became chairman of the legislative branch. that is everything, all of the buildings. office buildings, 1700 capitol police forces, and all of their help, support staff. i held
their deficit and we cannot, the world will switch to euros. there is a tweet here -- guest: the cbo is supposed to be a political, but it cannot be too alarmist. if we go over the cliff, we are looking on january 1, some of this is already milton. about $600 million -- $650 billion in spending cuts and tax increases. that is about 4% of gdp. that is an enormous negative stimulus. a detraction from demand. that would surely be a deep recession. the cbo relies on simulation models that did not take into consideration investor sentiment, the reaction of consumers, and so forth that they wholly lose confidence in their government. if we go over the cliff and stay there, people will start to conclude that washington cannot manage its affairs. all bets are off on economic modeling. it is impossible to say what happened that other than it would be very negative. host: one piece that you actually did right has this headline -- take the idea of a recession next year. with the perspective of everything else going on, when a recession look like? guest: it depends on how we get there. if we have a fiscal c
, because when g.o.p. is in the white house, deficits don't matter. can you tell us a little bit about the philosophies of the two candidates? well now, the president and the ex-candidate. will the situation be that much different if there was a different man in the white house? guest: well, look, it's an interesting question. it is certainly true that tax policy was one of the key sort of issues in the last election. and actually, the debate that we're having if it sounds familiar, it's because we've had it several times before. it was really a similar debate to what we had in 2008. we had the same debate in 2010. we had a similar debate in 2011 when we were dealing with the debt ceiling issue the first time around. and we dealt it with it in the last election. and the differences have always been that president obama has maintained that tax cuts should be allowed to expire for people making more than $250,000. mitt romney called for extending all the tax cuts fully. and making other changes to the tax code. but, you know, i mean, he wouldn't be in office right now anyway. so i think
to help the country at the same time reduce the deficits which are confronting. we were handed a number and the budget control act to reduce the defense budget by $487 billion over the next decade. based on my own budget experience at the time, i knew that the approach should be not to simply cut across the board and hollow out of the force. but try to develop a strategy, what is it what the defense department to be not just now but going into the future as well. that is the purpose why we developed the strategy. today i want to describe the strategic environment shaping our future. the progress we have made toward implementing the strategy and the risks we face as they work every day to try to keep america safe and secure. before i continue, let me pay tribute to a couple people here who join me at the head table. my deputy secretary plays a crucial role in helping me and dod develop and implement this strategy. i deeply appreciate his dedication and commitment to the department. i also want to pay tribute to my undersecretary for policy who was also here and worked very hard on that s
if you are wondering about reducing our deficit next year. host: candace on our line for independents. caller: i am never been able to get through before thank you for taking my call. unfortunately, i have to say that the republican congress is not going to do anything. you have to look that the last 03 years. they have not done a thing. the-you have to look at the last -- you have to look at the last two years. they have not done anything about job ax or the infrastructure build. i read an -- they have not done anything about the jobs act or the infrastructure build. i read an article about $2.60 trillion could be saved without touching safety nets. it is a well-written article. he talks about how eliminating unproductive and unnecessary tax spenders. the-tax expenditures. he especially talks about -- he especially talks about tax cuts. caller: -- guest: the republicans have been talking about spending cuts. it is true that they have not been as eager to pass the president's's stimulus plan. predictably, those two things conflict. the republicans want to go in the other direction. it
% chance its program will be insolvent in less than 20 years. meanwhile, its total deficit continues to grow and now stands at $34.4 billion. maintaining the status quo is no longer possible. governing -- they will expire in two years, meaning congress has an important opportunity to study the system, assessed its strengths and weaknesses, and produce solutions to support workers without discouraging participation in the voluntary pension system. we need the fact as quickly as possible. unfortunately, the administration has a history of slowing the work of this committee. it took nearly nine months to get answers to questions submitted by members of the committee, both republican and democrat, after a hearing in february. only now are we able to complete the hearing record. i am also troubled by missing reports that were due last year. these provided important details on multi employer pensions, including the sufficiency of current premium levels and the impact of funding rules on small employers. the law requires the pbgc to finish these reports by the end of last year, and that we'
in spending. that is a reason you have trillion dollar deficit. we are borrowing $.40 of every dollar that we spent. i mentioned the gdp figures. the historic average is that the government takes an 18% of gdp and spends 20% of gdp in spending. about 2% is a manageable deficit. the problem over the past three years is that we are at 60% and 24%. that gap is too big. at what level do you set the tax rate and what level do you have the spending rates? taxing a 24% will probably never happen. the question is, where is that middle ground do you end up? the bowles-simpson commission had 21%. members of congress have insisted that it does not go higher than 18%. that is the fight that will play out over the next couple of years. how much do we tax? how much are we paying for it? host: we want to remind our viewers and listeners of the consequences of going off of the fiscal cliff. in terms of the tax increases, it would mean another $221 billion. .he bush tax cuts expiring i payroll tax relief would expire and raise another $95 billion. i dish the provisions expire -- additional provisions expire f
medications which are used for attention deficit disorder, in particular adderall, a drug that is highly addictive. is being used to improve cognitive performance. we're seeing increases in 2009, 7.9% of 12th graders admit to the use of adderall for nonmedical purposes. as we try to determine what do they tell us, i think they are identified areas where we need to pay attention and not become complacent. regardless of our perception on whether the drug is worse than the other, we do recognize the more available a drug is regardless of its addictive per -- potential, the worse the outcomes. do we want to be seeing the rates with legal drugs for drugs like marijuana or do we want to do prevention efforts that can avoid all of the human cost and the medical consequences. thank you very much. >> thank you. i fail to mention that dr. volkow has been the director since 2003 and has led efforts to make sure drug abuse is known as a chronic brain condition. we appreciate the leaders of the doctor has taken in a leading us. the next speaker is dr. howard oh. -- koh. he oversees a number of office
worried about the state of our country. we run for years over a trillion dollar deficits and it is time for us to do a big fiscal deal in washington that really drives down the trajectory of our debt. we have to do it. and then come in the senate, we have to get back to regular budgeting. i serve on the senate budget committee. since i have been! =-- since i have been te here, even before that, three years since we have any budget in the senate. -- since i have been there, even before that, three years since we have done a budget in the senate. >> new hampshire is a great model. >> absolutely. this to me is the number one overriding priority. and i want to be part of making sure that we finally start getting on the right fiscal track. it is not easy. but there is no easy answer to all of this. and programs like social security and medicare, we have to start talking about how we reform them. because, for example, medicare goes bankrupt in 2024. that is not that far off for people in this room who rely on it. or social security in 2033. we have to have those hard discussions right now to
a favorable path towards achieving the fiscal cliff? guest: a $1 trillion budget deficit we have been running annually, that is unsustainable. something needs to be addressed. the shrinking of the time. we have, one has to get something done quickly and then a grand bargain as to get done in the springtime to fundamentally address the long- term budget deficit. but we have to get over the short-term obstacle. we're not looking for any specifics related to whether it should be government spending cuts, tax increases, but one thing we are very mindful of is that some politicians have been discussing a mortgage interest deduction as a revenue source. we are opposed to that. 7500 homeowners will be impacted by that. we are aware of that being on the table. host: when you talk of a grand bargain later on, if you are looking at the short term fix and then a grand bargain later on, the mortgage interest deduction could go away. would the realtors fight that deduction? guest: i don't think it will go away. it always comes on the table every decade or so. it's been in place a hundred years. we have to
the special mission had to rely on a militia, with skill deficits. overall, the board found the security systems and procedures were implemented properly by american personnel. ecosystem's themselves and the libyan response fell short on the night of the attacks -- those systems themselves and the libyan response fell short on the night of the attacks. their decision to depart the special mission without ambassador stevens kim after repeated efforts of many u.s. security agents -- came after manytepeated efforts of u.s. security agents. benghazi, tripoli and washington coordinated effectively with each other on the night of the attacks. the interagency response was timely and appropriate. but there was not enough time for u.s. military forces to have made a difference. having said that, it is not reasonable nor feasible to tether u.s. forces at the ready to respond to protect every high risk post in the world. we have found that there was no immediate tactical warning of the september 11 attacks. if there was a knowledge gap in the intelligence community's en understanding of extremist m
in infrastructure and dealing with the deficits were more -- in a more balanced way. it was about what our obligations are to each other. it was about big things. those are very, very big things. i will say that, for all of the critique about whether our campaign was about big things or not, the preoccupations of people who write about that -- and i used to do that for a living -- i don't try to separate myself -- many of them are my best friends -- there is an awful lot of horse race coverage of this presidential race. there is such a preoccupation with who will win and who will lose and so little real interest in what the implications are. >> we were talking about pulling. >> public polling is so voluminous now. any to kids with an abacus can do a poll of the corner grocery store and some national news are in position will cover it as if it is news. and maybe the billion tommy pulled him out today. -- the billy and tommy poll came out today. it can be done sound yet they produce results that were wholly different than what we knew to be the case. yet it would drive coverage. the gallup p
run for years over a trillion dollar deficits and it is time for us to do a big fiscal deal in washington that really drives down the trajectory of our debt. we have to do it. and then come in the senate, we have to get back to regular budgeting. i serve on the senate budget committee. since i have been! even before that, three years since we have any budget in t senate. -- since i have been there, even before that, three years since we have done a budget in the senate. >> new hampshire is a great model. >> absolutely. this to me is the number one overriding priority. and i want to be part of making sure that we finally start getting on the right fiscal track. it is not easy. but there is no easy answer to all of this. and programs like social security and medicare, we have to start talking about how we reform them. because, for example, medicare goes bankrupt in 2024. that is not that far off for people in this room who rely on it. or social security in 2033. we have to have those discussions right now to strethen america because nobody wants to see us see what happened ieu
, whether the deficit, people think about things the government can do to try to improve the job situation. and, fundamentally the concerns people have right now have to do with the fairness of the political system and the fairness of the economic system. that is the realm in which i think obama had an upper hand and played that. mitt romney making statements about 47% helped him in that regard it is not about class resentment. it is not middle income class and lower income resent middle- class people but the to the system as unfair. that the way benefits are distributed is unfair, and they want to see a system move in the direction of fairness. i think that theme played very well to obama and helped to overcome the headwinds he faced in that respect. but if it is there in a review of the election. then what i would like to do is open it up to more of a conversation and more of a question and answer. there are a lot of other things we steady besides voting and what voters decided. we study technology and how it is changing the way people engaged with campaigns. we study a lot about survey
to reduce the deficit and then double it, do you think the american electorate was cognizant of the fact that obama doubled in it instead of cutting it in half? why don't the american people care about the debt of the united states of america? guest: i do think they care about it. the economy is the number-one issue. guess what? then it comes down to things like jobs. then you come to the debt. it is not that americans are out of touch with the idea that the government is spending more money than we are taking in. there is lots of concern about whether or not the chinese is holding our debt. so, americans are very concerned and that the question is how you go about addressing this problem -- are very concerned. the question is how you go about addressing this problem. president obama and the democrats are saying we have a combined problem both in terms of not sufficient taxation and also we have to have cuts in spending. we have to do the cuts in spending over time because you do not want to endanger a very fragile economy. to respond directly to your question, why do i think the elector
are tough questions to answer. my priority is always education and our long term problems. i'm not a deficit hawk. people on both sides do bothwell. i don't understand the fuss about raising the age qualification for social security are medicare. and plead with the caps -- simply lift the caps. franklin roosevelt to not want to be called a socialist. if we just lived in those caps, we would delay -- i can remember the exact numbers. for several decades, anyway. i think that would be less painful than raising the qualified age. medicare is the toughest because of health care costs have been skyrocketing. our country's health care cost is rising faster than any other industrial nation. we don't have much coronation. obamacare had to be cobbled together to appease everybody. we have it and we should be focusing on ways to make our health care more efficient and i think we will. these are all tough problems but they need to be handled. being president is like playing three-dimensional chess. maybe four dimensions. caller: thank you, c-span. is the last year, didn't the president give over $1 tri
to people in united states of america who are in need of help, or help reduce the deficit that was testified to be the greatest national security threat to the united states of america. it is a matter of priorities. i appreciate the very noble -- i emphasize the word noble -- effort to help people who are in harm's also way in various parts of the world. my colleague from florida mentioned somalia. certainly in vietnam we tried to do the noble things. we're in a different financial reality. in the absence of a national security interest in the congo, i am afraid that sequestration will force us to retract even though we may wish to the contrary. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> a couple of questions. sequestration is not only obama's, but also our responsibility. i believe we voted for it. >> i did not vote for it. >> we talked about this whole issue. it has been suggested that perhaps -- >> $80 million. is that more or less correct? [indiscernible] >> we will hear that in a few moments. if that is correct, i would point out that this really is a national security issue for america
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46 (some duplicates have been removed)